On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 04:04:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:58:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:43:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Putting a barrier in the middle of that critical section is probably a > > > terrible idea, and that's why I thought you were avoiding it (hence my > > > > The fact is that I haven't thought of that way to implement > > cmpxchg_release before you ask that question ;-) And I'm not going to do > > that for now and probably not in the future. > > > > > original question). Perhaps just add a comment to that effect, since I > > > > Are you suggesting if I put a barrier in the middle I'd better to add a > > comment, right? So if I don't do that, it's OK to let this patch as it. > > No, I mean put a comment in your file to explain the reason why you > override _relaxed and _acquire, but not _release (because overriding
You mean overriding _acquire and fully order version, right? > _release would introduce this weird barrier in the middle of the critical > section, which would likely cause the conditional store to fail). > > Will
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
